On Fixing the Article on "Mat o Eru" and the Misuse Police

Introduction

This is completely unrelated, but a while ago at karaoke, I learned of a song called "Fight on the Web" by Taiiku Okazaki, which is about a message board flame war, and it left a deep impression on me.

In this song, there is a scene where someone points out that "Mat o iru" (to hit the target) is the correct expression for "Mat o eru" (to get the target), and the other person counters by saying that if you look it up, both are actually correct.

Returning to the title, the debate over "Mat o iru" versus "Mat o eru" is still frequently seen on social media and elsewhere. It has often become an edit war on wiki-style sites, and because the Pixiv Encyclopedia only presented the opinion that it was an error and had issues with objectivity, such as unclear sources, I spent several days rewriting it.

What I felt while researching at that time was, as expected, that "language is built on a balance between changes that match the times and tradition and rules." In particular, I felt that the consciousness of "how things ought to be" is also involved in the changes in language. I will summarize what I kept in mind and what I felt after conducting the investigation.

Premise: "Mat o eru" is not a typical misuse debate

The point of contention in typical misuse debates is "whether to accept or correct expressions that differ from the original." For example, "kosoku" originally meant "a temporary fix," but the meaning of "cowardly" is becoming common.

Although language is something that changes, if the meaning changes, communication cannot be established. Therefore, it is not enough to say it is fine because it is understood; sometimes you need to tighten the screws.

However, another point of contention in this debate is "whether it has been branded as a misuse even though it was fine either way to begin with," and "Mat o eru" is one of these. These two points of contention must be considered separately.

The opinion that the very idea that "Mat o eru" is originally an error might be wrong appeared around the 2010s.

Among them, a famous one is that when the 7th edition of the "Sanseido Kokugo Jiten" was revised in 2013, the explanation that "Mat o eru" is an incorrect expression was deleted.

It is often said that since a "target" (mato) is something to be "shot" (iru) with an arrow, it is strange to use "get" (eru).

However, as in "katsuyaku ga chuumoku no mato to naru" (the performance becomes the target of attention), "mato" is used metaphorically for things other than physical objects, and there are derived meanings such as "mato-hazure" (off the mark) meaning "the core of the matter." It is not necessarily required to interpret "mato" in its literal sense.

Mr. Iima, an editor of the "Sanseido Kokugo Jiten," judged that "Mat o eru" is not an unnatural expression because "mato = vital point" and "eru = to grasp well."

This judgment is by no means a mere excuse or justification, but rather an assertion that there is a problem with rashly labeling "Mat o eru" as an "error" when both were expressions that were being used.

In a corpus survey by Mr. Iima, "Mat o ita" and "Mat o eta" were expressions that became widely used after the war, with "Mat o ita" being used slightly later.

Furthermore, although it is a personal blog, there is a site that has conducted literature surveys across all eras. According to it, claims that 'mato wo eru' is incorrect because it is a mixture of 'mato wo iru' and 'to wo eru' can be seen in the 1970s, such as in 'Kuzureyuku Nihongo' (1977 reprint).

In short, while 'mato wo ita' is a slightly older expression than 'mato wo eta', from the perspective of actual usage and interpretation, it can be judged that there is no need to specifically denounce 'mato wo eta' as incorrect. can be judged.

However, this does not mean that common sense has been overturned, and it is necessary to be aware that there are still cautious positions, such as other dictionaries, that consider 'mato wo iru' to be the normative form.

Regarding the editing of the pixiv Encyclopedia

Looking at the edit history of the pixiv Encyclopedia, there were times when claims that 'mato wo eru' is a misuse (or rather, a mistranslation) or claims that either is fine were completely rewritten using emotional expressions.

I will omit the details, but the version before the edit was written almost entirely by one person, and it contained content lacking objectivity, such as claims mixed with personal opinions, expressions with ambiguous sources, and content leading to specific blogs.

My comprehensive rewrite also carries the risk of contributing to an 'edit war.' Also, I myself lean toward descriptivism (a position that values the state of language over rules) and am by no means neutral. Therefore, I edited with the following three points in mind.

• Showing the historical background

• Providing sources to the extent that it does not become superfluous, and making it open to criticism

• Presenting both the opinions of the misuse camp and the acceptance camp

As stated in the pixiv Encyclopedia editing guide 'If it becomes an edit war', large-scale revisions are not desirable, so I was careful not to let it become an article by a mere anti-normativist, such as by addressing the problems with the existing content.

'Mato wo Eru' and 'Choufuku/Juufuku' (Duplication)

What I felt after researching the historical background is that explaining the historical background and being a correct expression are separate topics.

'Mato wo eru' felt like it was in the same situation as 'choufuku/juufuku'. In the past, I conducted literature surveys on the reading of 'choufuku/juufuku' over several years and read through numerous papers and specialized books on kanji, and I wrote a long article that served as a culmination of that work.

'Juufuku' itself is also a valid reading based on the history of Japanese and kanji, and both readings were used to the same extent during the Meiji era, but since the Taisho era, 'juufuku' has been called incorrect.

The reason why NHK, which once considered only 'choufuku' to be correct, recognized both readings in 1994 is not only because the number of people who read it as 'juufuku' increased, but also because both readings have existed for a long time.

In other words, just like 'mato wo eru', it was not judged that 'either is fine now', but it was judged that there is no need to denounce 'juufuku' as incorrect.

However, I believe that in modern times, it can no longer be concluded that either reading is fine.

Setting aside the validity of the claim, in modern times where the information that 'juufuku is a mistake' has spread, there are survey results showing that resistance to 'juufuku' has increased and 'choufuku' has turned into the majority.

'Mato wo iru/mato wo eru' is in a similar situation, and while 'mato wo eru' was the majority in a 2004 survey by the Agency for Cultural Affairs, 'mato wo iru' turned into the majority in the 2013 survey.

While it is often discussed and viewed as a problem that language changes without people knowing the traditional expressions, it can be said that an excessively strong sense of normative consciousness—that one should use correct language without knowing the background or reasons—also contributes to such changes.

Quoting Mr. Iima's column again, regarding (1), even if someone thinks 'mato wo eru' (to get the target) is incorrect, as long as they understand that the person is referring to 'mato wo iru' (to hit the target), communication itself is established. (3) is also established based on the idea of 'successfully grasping the vital point'.

However, regarding (2), since there are people who dislike 'mato wo eru', it has the potential to be perceived as 'rude to the other party.' Therefore, in the pixiv Encyclopedia, we reached the conclusion: "In any case, in the modern era where 'mato wo iru' has long been considered normative and the awareness of 'mato wo eru' as a misuse still remains, it cannot be definitively labeled as a mistake, but caution is required when using it."

Just as those who believe only 'mato wo iru' is correct need to accept that either is fine, those who think either is fine also need to accommodate those who believe only 'mato wo iru' is correct.

However, I personally hold a negative stance toward casual Japanese etiquette. That said, I must also avoid half-heartedly relativizing things by pretending to be neutral, and it is even more of an imposition of values to claim things like 'I have revealed the truth of language! You should admit that either is fine!' (In fact, I am aware that my article on 'choufuku' (duplication) is not a perfect explanation or the absolute truth, and I do not think we should be tolerant of all linguistic changes.)

Precisely because I hold a negative stance, I feel that there is significance in critically examining claims about etiquette and leaving them in a form that can be critiqued after organizing the historical background.

The Problems with the 'Misusage Police'

People who point out expressions considered to be misuses like a police officer are colloquially called the 'misusage police'.

Of course, as I have mentioned, the mindset of correcting misusage is important in order to strive for expressions that convey meaning to the other party. However, as the term 'police' implies, I believe there is a problem with the act of keeping a watchful eye on and policing the expressions of others.

In order to point out a misuse, one must understand that the other party is using an expression that is not its original meaning. For example, to point out that 'that usage is incorrect' regarding the word 'kosoku,' one must first understand the premise that 'the meaning has changed from "stopgap" to "cowardly"' and then grasp that 'the other party is using the word "kosoku" in the sense of "cowardly".'

Furthermore, such information can be easily obtained if one only understands the simple and fixed structure that 'word A is originally B and not C.'

On social media, one can easily perform the act of pointing out 'misuses' by searching for set phrases like 'eien to' or 'sezaru oenai' and liking or replying to those posts. Moreover, one can judge others by hiding behind the shield of 'original expression/correct expression.'

I do not deny the act of caring about misusage or sometimes pointing it out for the purpose of communication. However, it is problematic to be trapped in the fixed idea that only a specific expression is correct, or to point out others to show one's own superiority in terms of knowledge. No matter how much you think an expression is corrupted, obsessing over a specific expression can actually become a cause for hindering communication.

In short, while it is important to value language, you must not substitute that issue for the purpose of mounting others. To borrow the lyrics from 'Fight on the Web,' it is a matter of 'don't fight on the internet.'

Of course, the same can be said for the position of arguing against the misusage police. As in the PV for 'Fight on the Web' mentioned at the beginning, if you know the story that 'the idea that only "mato wo iru" is correct is a mistake, and "mato wo eru" is also a historically correct expression,' you can argue against the 'mato wo eru police.'

Looking back at my own articles so far, I cannot deny that there was an aspect of writing them for the pleasure of arguing against societal etiquette. When editing the 'mato wo eru' article this time, I realized that this is a point I should reflect on in my own writing, as I became conscious of the necessity of discussing things in a way that allows for critique.

On the theory that 'mato wo eru' is a mistranslation (?)

Well, the content of the pixiv Encyclopedia before the edit was an argument that since "Seikoku wo ushinawazu" itself is a "mistranslation," one should avoid using "Seikoku wo eru" or "Mato wo eru," and it served as a warning not to treat the "Sanseido Kokugo Jiten" as absolute.

Such arguments have been edited and posted on various platforms in the 2010s using similar phrasing. To avoid an edit war, I wrote this after reading through the original version and the sites below that contain similar content, rather than dismissing the other party's claims.

First, I agree that one should not treat this trend as absolute, just as one should not treat the "Sanseido Kokugo Jiten" as absolute simply because Mr. Iima retracted his stance on the misuse, implying that "either is fine" and everything is solved. To repeat, clarifying the historical context of a language and seeking appropriate expressions are separate issues.

In his contribution article "Misuse Awareness that Suppresses Language Change" (2009), Mizuho Hidaka also argues that misuse awareness is involved in language change, citing examples like "ra-nuki kotoba" (omission of 'ra'), and in fact, looking at the survey results from the Agency for Cultural Affairs, the results show that for "Mato wo eru," "Mato wo iru" became the majority in 2013.

Once we understand that historically either is fine, we should not conclude that both should be accepted in today's language usage. Such discussions also connect to what is argued on Kakuyomu regarding "Hume's Guillotine," that is, one should not argue what ought to be from what is.

However, the same can be said for the arguments in the original version, which dismisses "Seikoku wo eru" and "Mato wo eru" as "not even a misuse" because they are mistranslations, thereby attempting to normalize them.

It is difficult to easily draw a line on which is correct, but the original version of the Kakuyomu post and the encyclopedia mentioned above contain many vague expressions such as "it is argued on a certain blog" or "there are experts who deny it." Compared to Mr. Iima's arguments and the Hatena blog that conducted literature research, while it may appear logical, the basis for its judgment is ultimately grounded in the existence of examples of "Chuseikoku" and the judgment that translating "shitsu (sureru)" as "ushinau" is inappropriate. Since the rest is left to the bibliography, it must be said that it is insufficient as an argument.

When discussing pseudoscience, five argumentative strategies of science deniers are known.

This is considered to be widely cited from the following blog.

Of course, I do not mean to say that the mistranslation theory is complete pseudoscience, and it is a valuable perspective.

However, as far as reading this argument goes, even if "② Conspiracy theory" is irrelevant, it can be said to lack scientific rigor, such as "① Cherry picking" by selecting only good examples, "③ Fake experts" by treating it as if there are experts who deny Mr. Iima's opinion (though the source is unknown), "④ Logical fallacies" by applying "Hume's Guillotine" to one's own argument as mentioned earlier, and "⑤ Impossible expectations" by not having proven it completely even after providing counterexamples and concluding it is a Japanese-made Chinese term (without basis).

That said, deleting such arguments entirely seems like an unfair deletion, and there is a concern that it will lead to an edit war.

Therefore, I edited it to be open to criticism by keeping the gist of the opponent's argument while providing counterexamples and actual instances, noting that the "Sanseido Kokugo Jiten" is also just one perspective, and being conscious of separating such fundamentalist discussions from actual Japanese usage.

Regarding actual examples, I have referred to Mr. Iima's survey results, the aforementioned Hatena blog, and the literature research of this person.

In addition to those, I have also used the "National Diet Library Digital Collections" and a corpus called CCL from Peking University that allows searching of classical Chinese literature, taking care not to rely solely on secondary sources. ("Seikoku ni ataru" and "Seikoku wo shisu," etc., were added during that research.)

Aside

I omitted this as it deviates from the main argument, but here is one thing that was interesting.

I checked Chinese dictionaries for 'seikoku' (正鵠) and found that it only lists meanings like 'center of a target' or, by extension, 'goal.' I wanted to confirm if it was used in the same way as in Japanese, to mean 'the point of a matter.'

The phrase 'sai toku seikoku' (最得正鵠) mentioned in the note article is one metaphorical example, but it seems there were a small number of instances where 'chu seikoku' (中正鵠) was used with that meaning as well.

The book above is also recorded in 'Ming Wenheng' (明文衡) and is a text thought to have been written during the Ming Dynasty (15th century). It is a passage praising the accuracy of a treatment, using the analogy of an arrow being released from a mechanism (若矢發機) to hit the center of the target (必中正鵠). This suggests that in China, too, 'chu seikoku' had evolved to mean hitting the essence of a matter.

In this farewell poem from the Northern Song Dynasty, 'chu seikoku' is used to refer to passing the imperial examination. (It describes his path as a bureaucrat, such as not letting his ancestors' work fall and assisting in Dangshan.)

I believe that the metaphorical use of 'seikoku' to mean the point of a matter may have existed in the Chinese language as well.